The Golden Compast

There seems to be a trend in children's literature that the book's protagonist must be somewhat of a spy.  We saw this in Harriet the Spy, Eloise, and yet again in this week's novel The Golden Compast.  Children are and must be naturally curious, they need to explore their world to better understand it.  However, when natural curiosity turns to spying, I begin asking questions.  Although Lyra saves her uncles life when she hides out in the closet and observes the master putting poison in the canister from which he would drink, Lyra was somewhere where she shouldn't been.  Are we then teaching young people that all adults are untrustworthy?  That spying is okay because the possibly of overting danger may be the benefit?  Are we teaching our children that bounderies are non-existent as long as they are not caught?
Again, for the record, I am not a fan of the fantasy genre.  I don't like witches, the supernatural, ghost, gobblins, and especially the idea that the soul exists apart from the individual in what is termed a daemon.  I am not sure why it was necessary to refer to the soul as a daemon.  I get that the author was suggesting that the person is the only human that truly knows his or her own inner thoughts and motivations.  I get that the author was affirming that part of the self regulating process, self discipline process, requires us to talk to ourselves as it were, and figure things out.  I just disagree with the terminology used to refer to the human soul.  Perhaps, this fundamental difference has everything to do with my Christian faith, and how Christians view the existence of demons.  I would not want to be associated with one, neither would I want my child reading a book that suggest that an animal that accompanies them everywhere, can be an extension of their internal self.  I believe that the human soul is the individual, nothing more, nothing less.  I believe that when I die, my soul dies.  It does not survive and exist apart from me in a separate form.  I couldn't get past the idea of the external soul personified as animals to really analyze the novel for its literary value, I must admit.  I understand however, that the novel has more to do with free will and very little in common with religion.  I just find it difficult to talk about one aside from the other. 
Lastly, I found this novel a little scary (I don't like horror either).  A parent's biggest fear is for a child to be stolen away, kidnapped, or missing.  It makes no difference, we want to know our children are safe because they are so very precious to us.  I didn't like the storyline where the children are taken by the Gob's and used to conduct experiments on.  In the back of my mind, I kept thinking about the Holocaust, and reacted deeply to the abduction plot-line.  Although this novel is extremely well written, and the characters are fully developed, it was problematic for me in a number of ways.  The Golden Compass, though not my least favorite this semester, has truly been a challenge for me to read.  I enjoyed the parallel universe, journeying to the north and the dangerous adventures by necessity, I just found it difficult to get beyond the idea of the soul being in the form of an aminal, existing outside the physical body of the individual.  I subscribe to the Genesis account "He blew into his nostrils and he became a living soul," for me any other explaination is a contrary explaination.

Lion-Witch-Wardrobe

This book is interesting on many levels.  I though appreciate the backstory from which it arose.  C.S. Lewis incorporates real world elements into his fantasy tale.  I remember reading in history about the relocation of English children from the city of London to the countryside shortly before World War II erupts.  This is what first captured my interest with the book.  Fantasy for me was always difficult because it was so other-wordly.  Fantasy required me to believe in the make believe, and being a realist makes that extremly challenging.  So the fact that the author uses real world conditions of the 1940 as a springboard for this fantasy book makes it that much more appealing.  I enjoy history and historic fiction is my favorite genre of literature, so naturally when even small historic connections can be made it provides me with a possible reason 'to buy into' the fantasy tale and not discount it because of my personal beliefs and values. 
That being said, the novel is packed with allusions popular in Christiandom.  I won't ascribe all the allusions to Christianity because the book also borrows from Greek Mythology (I have in mine, the witch's ability to turn her enemies into stone; sounds like Medousa, the Gorgon, who could turn a person into stone with a simple glance).  The book also contains elements commonly associated with paganism ( I'm reminded of comsuption and the importance of food in pagan festivals).  For all intended purposes, the Turkish Delight becomes Edmund's god and he betrays his siblings in exchange for it.  In ancient Rome, paganist delighted in sensual pleasures and hedonism.  Edmund succombs to gluttony, which essentially makes him the pagan character of the book. But mostly I asking whether readers would have to already be aware of these earlier writings to recognize the allusions?  I wondering if it is difficult for all adults, as it has been for me, to put aside what we know in favor of having new experiences while reading books designed for children.  I really didn't want to compare Aslan with Jesus Christ, nor did I want to see the White Witch as the representation of evil, namely Satan the Devil in the Christian tradition.  So I decided that the White Witch would for me be more closely associated with Greek Mythology and would then be a sort of demi-god, because while she is not human, she is not all powerful either.  But as I think about it now, that same connection is made in the Bible book of Genesis.  Before the flood of Noah's day, wicked angels who forsook their natural place in Heaven, came down to the earth and took wives for themselves.  The offspring of the fallen angels or demons and the daughters of men were the Nephilim.  These characters were wicked individuals and coincidently, were the giants in the earth.  Similar to the White Witch, the Nephilim used their brute force and took whatever they liked.  Their badness was not allowed to go on indefinetly and neither was that of the White Witch.  See, I'm doing it again.  While attempting to analyze the reading, I am guilty of bringing in  my previous knowledge and understanding.  I cannot ignor all the obvious allusions to earlier writings of a religious or secular nature.  Did C. S. Lewis intend that to be the case? Where children suppose to read the novel in a similar way?  How would this be beneficial?  I'm left with more questions than answers.

The Appeal of Children Literature

This week's selections reminded me of how expansive the umbrella for Children's Literature is.  Over the last several weeks we have read and discussed what may be described as classical children's literature.  But as the weeks rolled by, I've found myself increasingly asking, 'What exactly constitutes Children's Literature?'  So, I set out in search of a definitive answer.  I began my search the old fashion way and consulted my favorite dictionary, my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1973, for a working definition.  I always understood that literature in the archaic sense refers to "literary culture", but while the definition is substantive, it is problematic in scope.  I decided that I would settle on the 'a' part of the third definition and adopt it as my working definiton for the purpose of the tasks set before me.  So here it goes,  literature is "writings in prose or verse; esp: writing having excellence of form or expresssion and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest".   I'm thrilled with this definition.  It helps me to better conceptualize the appeal of two children's classics-The Cat In the Hat and Where the Wild Things Are.
Although it may cause me some ridicule, I'll be very honest, I never particularly liked The Cat In The Hat (I am a fan of Dr. Seuss of course, just not this book).  As a former Education Major, I recognize the book for its genius, in that it is an excellent tool to teach beginning readers vocabulary, about rhyme, and even older students about omniscient narrators.  However, I always read this book and questioned why the children seemed to be unattended for so long.  Now as I think about it, I'm sort of reminded of Harriet the Spy, which leads me to a different point , chaos results when children are left to their own devices.  Anyway, as an English Major, I at least see the appeal of the book.  When I reread it along with Where the Wild Things Are, I better appreciate it's appeal as a picture book.  Reviewed in this context, I more fully understand that the illustrations too, are a feat of skill.  The illustrations for these two books leave a permanent impression on the readers mind.  Literally, the cat in the hat looks unlike any cat i've ever seen, yet the image is immediately evolked by the title alone.  On the other hand, I always liked Where the Wild Things Are.  The book is totally relatable.  This book teaches internal and external conflict to children.  Most have had issues with a parent and dealt with their own anger.  But it is the pictures in this book that I believe help reconcile the conflict.  So, the appeal, well I'd have to say, each book expresses "excellence of form" in art and treats children as they naturally are, curious and full of the same emotions as every other person.

Harriet The Spy

I've been trying to decide, who or what exactly has the greatest influence upon our children?  Is it the parent, the schools, social environment, peers? The classic children's book Harriet The Spy, started me thinking along these lines.
The book's protagonist is a quirky eleven year old girl who pretends to be a spy and gathers information about those around her.  Some of the gathering requires Harriet to be a bit of a sleuth, most of what she garthers requires her to be just plain noisy.  Harriet records all her finding, whether they are factual or conjecture, in her secret notebook.  Writing it down, seems to help Harriet to process and understand people and by extension the world.  However, whatever is written, becomes the truth.  This is problematic for me.  Opinion seems to have equal footing with truth within the pages of the novel.  I realize it is a children's book, yet I question what the takeaway will be?  Will a young reader discern that truth and what is means to be honest is somewhat skewed within the pages of the book?   Consider the statement: "Sometimes you have to lie. But to yourself you must always tell the truth."  Will the young reader understand that a lie is never anything but a lie?  Or rather will they reason that "Little lies that make people feel better are not bad, like thanking someone for a meal they made even if you hated it, or telling a sick person they look better when they don't, or someone with a hideous new hat that it's lovely.  But to yourself you must tell the truth."  I want my two year old son to understand clearly, that there are not good lies and bad lies, there are simply lies.  
I guess I'm a little nervous about a book's influence upon its readers.  Will the message and values put forth within the pages of a book carry more weight than the words spoken by a parent?  Harriet The Spy, has a reading level of 6.2 but an intereest level for children in grades 3-5.  My hope is that younger readers will recognize the character Ole Golly as the sage of the book.  The lessons she teach, especially about lonliness and understanding self, are the ones I hope they remember, long after they have put the book aside.  I like how Ole Golly and her words of wisdom; "You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous.  And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life."  This is the message I would hope children get from the book, that self awareness is important, but so are good manners and conduct. I hope the young readers understands that just because you think or feel something, doesn't mean others have to accept it as their truth.